Search

Public health officials promoted COVID-19 vaccines to limit burdens placed on the U.S. healthcare system and end the pandemic. People in some closed religious communities refused to vaccinate and likely acquired temporary immunity through infection. This paper compares the death rates in Amish, Old Order Mennonites, and conservative Mennonite groups to a rate estimated for the U.S. population. Approximately two-thirds of the U.S. population was immunized against COVID-19, while few in the Amish/Mennonite community were. We find divergent patterns. Once vaccines became available, excess deaths declined in the general population and remained elevated among Amish and Mennonites. Vaccination campaigns must consider and value the cultural beliefs of closed religious communities to be effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to better understand the factors driving reported trends in domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the effect of the pandemic on survivors' experiences of violence and ability to seek support. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 32 DV service providers operating in organizations across 24 U.S. cities. The majority of providers described a decrease in contact volume when shelter-in-place orders were first established, which they attributed to safety concerns, competing survival priorities, and miscommunication about what resources were available. For most organizations, this decrease was followed by an increase in contacts after the lifting of shelter-in-place orders, often surpassing typical contact counts from the pre-pandemic period. Providers identified survivors' ability to return to some aspects of their pre-pandemic lives, increased stress levels, and increased lethality of cases as key factors driving this increase. In addition, providers described several unique challenges faced by DV survivors during the pandemic, such as the use of the virus as an additional tool for control by abusers and an exacerbated lack of social support. These findings provide insight into the lived experiences driving observed trends in DV rates during COVID-19. Understanding the impact of the pandemic on survivors can help to shape public health and policy interventions to better support this vulnerable population during future crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Street psychiatry" is an innovative model that serves people experiencing unsheltered homelessness, a vulnerable population with increased rates of mental illness and substance use disorders. Through community-based delivery of mental health and addiction treatment, street psychiatry helps the street-dwelling population overcome barriers to accessing care through traditional routes. Throughout the United States, street psychiatry programs have arisen in multiple cities, often in partnership with street medicine programs. We discuss the philosophy of street psychiatry, document operational highlights involved in the development of a street psychiatry program in New Haven, CT, suggest key ingredients to implementing a street psychiatry program, and explore challenges and future frontiers. Street psychiatry is an effective person-centered model of service delivery with the potential to be applied in a variety of urban settings to serve people experiencing street homelessness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Concerns exist about the ability of safety net health care organizations to participate in US health care reform. Primary care practices are key to several efforts, but little is known about how capabilities of primary care practices serving a high share of disadvantaged patients compare to other practices.Objective: To assess capabilities around access to and quality of care among primary care practices serving a high share of Medicaid and uninsured patients compared to practices serving a low share of these patients.Design: We analyzed data from the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (response rate 46.8%), conducted 2017-2018.Participants: A total of 2190 medical practices with at least three adult primary care physicians.Main Measures: Our key exposures are payer mix and federally qualified health center (FQHC) designation. We classified practices as safety net if they reported a combined total of at least 25% of annual revenue from uninsured or Medicaid patients; we then further classified safety net practices into those that identified as an FQHC and those that did not.Key Results: FQHCs were more likely than other safety net practices and non-safety net practices to offer early or late appointments (79%, 55%, 62%; p=0.001) and weekend appointments (56%, 39%, 42%; p=0.03). FQHCs more often provided medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders (43%, 27%, 25%; p=0.004) and behavioral health services (82%, 50%, 36%; p<0.001). FQHCs were more likely to screen patients for social and financial needs. However, FQHCs and other safety net providers had more limited electronic health record (EHR) capabilities (61%, 71%, 80%; p<0.001).Conclusion: FQHCs were more likely than other types of primary care practices (both safety net practices and other practices) to possess capabilities related to access and quality. However, safety net practices were less likely than non-safety net practices to possess health information technology capabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]